Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30593277›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of surgical oncology2018

Carbon fibre/polyether ether ketone (CF/PEEK) implants in orthopaedic oncology.

Christoph J Laux, Sandro M Hodel, Mazda Farshad, Daniel A Müller

Open access · goldAbstract readCase Reports
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of surgical oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Carbon-fibre plates for traumatic and (impending) pathological fracture fixation: Where do we stand? A systematic review.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2023
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Christoph J LauxBalgrist University Hospital, Forchstrasse 340, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland. christoph.laux@balgrist.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5446-3057
Sandro M HodelBalgrist University Hospital, Forchstrasse 340, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland.
Mazda FarshadBalgrist University Hospital, Forchstrasse 340, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland.
Daniel A MüllerBalgrist University Hospital, Forchstrasse 340, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland.
Universitätsklinik Balgrist · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRadiation therapy is an important therapeutic element in musculoskeletal tumours, especially when encountering multiple or painful lesions. In osteolytic lesions, a surgical stabilization with implants is often required. However, metallic implants not only complicate the CT-based planning of a subsequent radiation therapy, but also have an uncontrollable dose-modulating effect in adjuvant radiotherapy. In addition, follow-up imaging and the diagnosis of local recurrences are often obscured by metallic artefacts. Radiolucent implants consisting of carbon/polyether ether ketone (CF/PEEK) therefore facilitate adjuvant radiation therapy and follow-up imaging of bone lesions. We hereby present clinical cases with application of CF/PEEK implants in orthopaedic tumour surgery.

methodsWe report a single-centre experience of three selected patients with surgical stabilization of osteolytic bone lesions using CF/PEEK implants. Detailed information about the clinical presentation, preoperative considerations, surgical procedures and postoperative results is provided for each case.

resultsOne spinal lesion (T12 vertebral body), one lesion of the upper extremity (humerus) and one of the lower extremities (tibia) were surgically stabilized with use of CF/PEEK implants. With a mean follow-up of 12 months (range 6-25 months), no adverse events were observed. Two patients received adjuvant radiotherapy. Follow-up imaging was obtained in all patients.

conclusionThe applicability of CF/PEEK implants in orthopaedic tumour surgery is good with respect to postoperative follow-up imaging, application of adjuvant radiotherapy and intraoperative handling. As a result of the unique material properties, oncological patients might particularly benefit from CF/PEEK implants.

Indexed as

OsteolysisProstheses and ImplantsAdolescentAgedBenzophenonesCarbon FiberHumansKetonesMaleOrthopedicsOsteoporotic FracturesPolyethylene GlycolsPolymersPrognosisBenzophenonesCarbon FiberKetonespolyetheretherketonePolyethylene GlycolsPolymersBone metastasesCF/PEEKImagingOrthopaedic oncologyPolyether ether ketoneRadiation therapy

Identifiers

PMID30593277
PMCPMC6310953
OpenAlexW2907024860

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.